get_search_suggest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ('matching issues with keys'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or how partial matches are ranked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the usage condition. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the shape of the return value ('issues with keys'). Only minor gaps remain (no cap on result count or fallback guidance), so it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'input' (text fragment) and 'queue' (limit to one queue) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Autocomplete suggestions for issue summaries.' An agent can distinguish this from find_issues/search_entities because it is framed as autocomplete for imprecise names rather than full search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'use when the user references an issue by an imprecise name.' It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g. find_issues) for exact/ambiguous lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.